[License-discuss] proposal to revise and slightly reorganize the OSI licensing pages

Chris Travers chris at metatrontech.com
Sat Jun 9 08:47:59 UTC 2012

Just one point in support of Rick's assertion here.

My points as I stated I think clearly, are under the assumption that a
court would look at the GPL v2 and try to map it directly to
compiled/collected works (license allows without regard to license of
other components) and derivative works (requires to be under the same
license).  Beyond the uncertainties I have suggested there's a second
way I could see a court looking at it (again IANAL but I have listened
to a lot of oral argument and read a lot of case law).

I could see a court saying "the near-unanimous view of the GPL v2 as
expressed by the licensor here is that a work that links to this work
is based on it for purposes of this license.  Therefore it doesn't
matter whether or not it meets the definition of derivative work or
not.  The licensee knew this was the intention of the license and
therefore we intend to enforce it as such."

So I think you have questions as to how the GPL v2 would/should be
interpreted and, depending on that, questions of where the line is
between a compiled and a derivative work.  I don't think either of
these are as clear as the "you need a license if you link" crowd would
like to think though.

Best Wishes,
Chris Travers

More information about the License-discuss mailing list